That does not sound like it came from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
The Petitions Committee is set up by the House of Commons. It comprises up to 11 backbench Members of Parliament from Government and Opposition parties. The number of committee members from each political party is representative of the membership of the House of Commons as a whole.
Is it normal practise to respond to one of these petitions at a certain level of signatures? Or have they made a special effort to head it off at the pass?
The government will respond after 10,000 signatures and 'consider' a debate after 100,000.
That does not sound like it came from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
The Petitions Committee is set up by the House of Commons. It comprises up to 11 backbench Members of Parliament from Government and Opposition parties. The number of committee members from each political party is representative of the membership of the House of Commons as a whole.
But presumably the Committee must seek the answers from the relevant government department? So the Department of Culture Media and Sport, headed by John Whittingdale, would indeed be the expected one for a reply. I've assumed its his department that drafted this (or should I say, cut and pasted it). Am I understanding the system correctly?
"The contract, awarded after an open public competition, has been widely scrutinised and tested in court." - How can it be widely scrutinised if it is secret?
"one that won’t require continuous support from the taxpayer" - The terms of the contract mean it is permanent support from the taxpayer.
"the profits from its multiple uses will flow to the taxpayer" - What profits? Income doesn't equal "profit"
"West Ham United will only access the full stadium facilities for and shortly ahead of home matches, anticipated to be an average of 25 games a year." And prevent access for other purposes for at least 50 other days excluding reservations for cup games etc.
"The Stadium is a multi-use venue, which has already hosted a major athletics meet this year" - Only because its empty at the moment. Wait til WH have a say on whether proposed events interfere with their needs.
"All revenues from these events will be shared by the operator and the Stadium owners" - After costs how much "profit" left for Stadium operator.
"The agreement with West Ham United, including their contribution to transformation costs and rent, followed an open competitive process, which was delivered under EU rules," - Deliver under any rules you want, it distorts competition and was a deal done at any cost simply to allow athletics to take place whatever the cost to the taxpayer.
"As the winning bid this constituted the best available return for the taxpayer" - Apart from allowing any bid that would have had a better outcome for the taxpayer without being an athletics stadium.
"The EC has considered this issue on more than one occasion and has done so with full sight of the contractual terms, comprehensive detail of the tender exercise and in depth legal opinion on compliance with UK and EU law." - And who knows perhaps in return for the UK making a concession on some other issue, compromise is how the EU works.
"The detail of the rental agreement between the Stadium owners and West Ham United is commercially sensitive." - Its an established precedent in FOI cases that information in a contract created as a result of the contract cannot be confidential and only information existing pre contract can be confidential. It can only be withheld if national interests override the public interest.
"It is important that the stadium owners and operator are able to negotiate future contracts in a way that derive maximum value and are not constrained by any one agreement. Such arrangements are standard practice" - Bullshit. I've given Prague a list of anomalies and arguments that challenge this.
Prague - Has any complaint been made to the Competitions and Marketing Authority over the award of the stadium to West Ham? I have an inside track and could help with guidance on what to include with a "super complaint" to the CMA if this avenue has not been investigated previously? PM me if you want.
I think all of this should come down to two questions as the danger is it all becomes too complicated. The first question doesn’t seem to bother those in power – and it is around the damage that will be done to local and competing clubs, especially Leyton Orient. I suppose it only affects a minority of people, even if they are taxpayers. Of course it bothers us greatly.
The second question is very important. And it has to be around the profit the tax payer will make from West Ham’s contribution. Simple maths show that the £15m West Ham have contributed subtracted from the £272 million of taxpayer’s money fed in to make the stadium suitable for them leaves £257 to be recouped from them. So if after associated costs, £2m is recouped from West Ham each year, it will take 128.5 years for taxpayers to get their money back. If the higher rent estimate of £2.5m is paid it will still take over 100 years. That is not factoring the costs of upkeep of the stadium which over 10 years are likely to be significant, let alone 100 years! How much has it cost to run the Valley over the last 10 years!!!
Prague - Has any complaint been made to the Competitions and Marketing Authority over the award of the stadium to West Ham? I have an inside track and could help with guidance on what to include with a "super complaint" to the CMA if this avenue has not been investigated previously? PM me if you want.
Thanks, will do just that, this occurred to me yesterday
Only had time to skim read it but, if I didn't know different, I would have thought the West Ham PR Department produced it following a pacing piece of dictation from a recent addition to the House of Lords.
I think all of this should come down to two questions as the danger is it all becomes too complicated. The first question doesn’t seem to bother those in power – and it is around the damage that will be done to local and competing clubs, especially Leyton Orient. I suppose it only affects a minority of people, even if they are taxpayers. Of course it bothers us greatly.
The second question is very important. And it has to be around the profit the tax payer will make from West Ham’s contribution. Simple maths show that the £15m West Ham have contributed subtracted from the £272 million of taxpayer’s money fed in to make the stadium suitable for them leaves £257 to be recouped from them. So if after associated costs, £2m is recouped from West Ham each year, it will take 128.5 years for taxpayers to get their money back. If the higher rent estimate of £2.5m is paid it will still take over 100 years. That is not factoring the costs of upkeep of the stadium which over 10 years are likely to be significant, let alone 100 years! How much has it cost to run the Valley over the last 10 years!!!
The issue is only complicated because government are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. 1 creating an athletics legacy at no cost to the taxpayer 2 as owners of a piece of real estate that needs developing with State aid, acting as would a commercial business in order to get EU clearance.
It's only possible with smoke and mirrors and all efforts are designed to keep them from public view.
As "just a concessionaire"...how are WHam allowed to deck the stadium out in their own colours and logo? And how much of their £15m "contribution" is being spent on this lovely decking?
Do Athletics UK get to do the same across two of the sides, or are they changing their colours to claret/blue and having a couple of iron hammers as their new logo. After all, they have the stadium for a month...even longer than WHam's 25 days!! Surely they have as much right to choose the colour scheme!!
I suppose they'd also have to change their name to Athletics LONDON too though!!
A little flippant I know, but that seems to be the attitude of Boris, Gullivan, LLDC & Government.
If they invested the £259m into bonds, a conservative 2% interest would yield over £5m per anum (double West Ham’s peppercorn rent). Daft to raise tax payers money to do this, but financially more prudent than spending the £259m solely to make the stadium suitable for a football club. Then the days West Ham would have the stadium for matches could be given to youth/schools athletics. How inspiring would the use of an Olympic stadium with world class facilities be to our future Olympians? A far better legacy surely and more tax payer friendly.
Having read pages and pages of this whilst a few seem to have genuine intentions to hold the Government accountable the vast majority seem to have a personal crusade against West Ham and unless they have broken the law themselves I struggle to see what those people are hoping to see happen out of all this?
I think the Government response shows they are going to insist that West Ham are paying for limited use so have a financial agreement to reflect this and with their commitment for 99 years it secures the long term viability of the stadium to secure other revenue streams.
Far too many of the points seem to be clutching at straws moaning about the colour of the seats or whatever which in reality matter little because at the end of day West Ham will only have use for a few days a year and it is up to the stadium operators to maximise income from it for the rest of the time.
It seems to me most people actually seem to want the type of deal that was initially first agreed where West Ham took over the full running of the stadium and paid for it so it looks whoever caused that to collapse is the one to thank for what we have now which is on paper West Ham now controlling the stadium use for less days than UK Athletics and as such is almost impossible to call whether West Ham's financial commitment is unreasonable until everything is up and running for a few years and until then I fail to see little argument from the points raised to force a change in this deal.
Yes of course the real point of the matter here is it appears to be the move puts West Ham into what is perceived to be an advantageous position because of this deal but unless they get something more out of it I fail to see how they can be expected to contribute more, as I said the best deal for the rest of ours other than them staying at The Boleyn was probably what was first agreed where they would have been burdened with all the costs though in return they had control of the venue but someone in their wisdom thought that was unfair so saw fit to scupper that, I will confidently predict should something similar happen again the party that will benefit most again will probably be West Ham again.
I disagree – the real point here is that the stadium – rightly or wrongly was not built for football and £272m to make it so is bad value whatever way you want to look at it (£259m after West Ham’s contribution). It has been acknowledged that West Ham will be paying between £2m and £2.5m per anum rent. Associated running costs, staffing, pitch, goal posts, even corner flags will not be covered by them. So getting a return is going to be impossible for us, our children and our grandchildren who will all be dead before that happens. As the conversion cost turns a non-football stadium into a football stadium, the venue should not have been used as a football stadium or the football club or clubs using it needed to pay a fairer whack!
Why do people still only calculate with 2.5 million rent from West Ham ? It is common knowledge already that the LLDC will get the majority of catering income from the West Ham game plus the vast majority of the naming rights of the OS (which will be reasonably high due to West Ham playing Premier League football there). So the West Ham related income alone will be between 5-10 million a year. Which means the conversion costs will actually be recovered multiple times over during the 99 year lease. I would have much prefered a solution with football incorporated from the beginning, keeping the conversion costs to a minimum. I would have prefered a solution where a club like West Ham (or another Premier League club) would buy the OS and be responsible for all additional costs (meaning of course also getting all the income from other events taking place in the OS). And ideally I would have prefered a smaller venue being made available for athletics, so the OS could have ended up being a proper football stadium with no need for an athletics legacy. Several bad decisions by certain people have brought us into this mess. You are still arguing the case of the LLDC having been bad negotiators. Maybe you should lay the blame at the people who put the LLDC into a terrible bargaining position to begin with. West Ham were in the right place at the right time, negotiating the best deal for themselves. I fully expect you to pursue other avenues now and again I wish you good luck with your endeavours. Are you still pinning your hopes on the Daily Mail and BBC investigative reporters now ?
I have the impression that you do not fully understand what the "previous deal" actually was, and why it failed. Please tell us what you think it as, and who it was who "caused it to collapse". It will be useful for people to have the facts on that.
Other than that you make the same unjustified assertion you did on your last visit on Aug 6, namely that the vast majority of the comments on here reflect a personal crusade against West Ham. That is as untrue now as it was on Aug 6, as I pointed out to you at the time. Poster after poster has acknowledged that West Ham have done what any business would do. Indeed I read a poster on KUMB saying that if in stead Arsenal or Spurs had done such a deal, it would have been Hammers fans who would have started the petition.
Why do people still only calculate with 2.5 million rent from West Ham ? It is common knowledge already that the LLDC will get the majority of catering income from the West Ham game plus the vast majority of the naming rights of the OS (which will be reasonably high due to West Ham playing Premier League football there). So the West Ham related income alone will be between 5-10 million a year. Which means the conversion costs will actually be recovered multiple times over during the 99 year lease.
Why do you persist in overstating the LLDC income ? Those with far greater knowledge of these subjects will tell you the income from hospitality is huge - all to WHU, whilst the income from general catering is pretty marginal and any profit shared with Vinci, as I assume will also be the naming rights, so not much left for LLDC.
The big match day earner is corporate hospitality and executive boxes etc… West Ham have been allowed to bank all revenues (for 99 years) from these in the contract. Difficult to see how West Ham (currently a middling to poor premiership club) really makes the naming rights of an Olympic stadium more attractive! Of course if the arrangement turns them into an Arsenal or Chelsea, maybe so, but then the argument about the advantage they are being given comes back to prominence. How much have West Ham earned from the naming rights of Upton Park?
PragueAddick, stupid question, are you actually based in Prague now or did you just used to live there as an expat and are back in Britain ?
I spend more time in Prague than London, but I remain a UK taxpayer and am on the electoral roll . As you'd have known if you'd been on the pre Election thread. My man took a terrible beating:-) I'll be at the Valley for the next two home games, if your lot are away and you fancy watching us, you'll find me there distributing the latest Trust News. Which come to think of it, you may not enjoy reading.
No Prague Addick, I won't be at the Valley anytime soon...:-) But is it not true that West Ham succeeded in one of the earlier bidding processes which would have allowed them to own the OS and also benefit from other events there while obviously bearing the vast majority of the conversion costs, but this was rebuffed with the aid of Hearn and Levy resulting in another bidding process to rent the OS only ? Also West Ham tried to reach a solution before a brick had been laid to incorporate football use into the design of the stadium, and they were also rebuffed at that stage. Anyway, you seem to have hit somewhat of a roadblock with the government. The European Commission have already claimed there is no state aid case to answer as they apparently have seen the entire contract. So, what next for you ? And what could I possibly not enjoy reading in your latest Trust News ? That you have won the support of the Pope, Kate Winslet or Lewis Hamilton for your petition ?
One more thing about the naming rights. It doesn't really matter if West Ham at this stage is merely a midtable Premier League club. The most important thing is it IS a Premier League club and all the games will be shown live in the USA and the important Asian markets too. Plus judging by the season ticket sales we can assume that every single game in our first season there will be a sellout. So if West Ham finish in 12th position this season, 10th or 7th. The interest of a decent sponsor bringing money to the OS will be huge.
One more thing about the naming rights. It doesn't really matter if West Ham at this stage is merely a midtable Premier League club. The most important thing is it IS a Premier League club and all the games will be shown live in the USA and the important Asian markets too. Plus judging by the season ticket sales we can assume that every single game in our first season there will be a sellout. So if West Ham finish in 12th position this season, 10th or 7th. The interest of a decent sponsor bringing money to the OS will be huge.
So why haven't WHU been able to attract a stadium sponser so far ? Whether Upton Park or the OS makes no difference to the USA and Asian markets.
I think it makes a massive difference to the USA and Asian markets. The OS has a different aura and stature due to the Olympics. But the Olympics are over. Now it'll be mainly Premier League football. That's where West Ham come into the picture. It is the combination of those that'll drive the price for the naming rights.
I think it makes a massive difference to the USA and Asian markets. The OS has a different aura and stature due to the Olympics. But the Olympics are over. Now it'll be mainly Premier League football. That's where West Ham come into the picture. It is the combination of those that'll drive the price for the naming rights.
But it's only a Premier League Stadium for "an average of 25 days per year"!!!!! What do we call it on those other days?
No Prague Addick, I won't be at the Valley anytime soon...:-) But is it not true that West Ham succeeded in one of the earlier bidding processes which would have allowed them to own the OS and also benefit from other events there while obviously bearing the vast majority of the conversion costs, but this was rebuffed with the aid of Hearn and Levy resulting in another bidding process to rent the OS only ? Also West Ham tried to reach a solution before a brick had been laid to incorporate football use into the design of the stadium, and they were also rebuffed at that stage. Anyway, you seem to have hit somewhat of a roadblock with the government. The European Commission have already claimed there is no state aid case to answer as they apparently have seen the entire contract. So, what next for you ? And what could I possibly not enjoy reading in your latest Trust News ? That you have won the support of the Pope, Kate Winslet or Lewis Hamilton for your petition ?
You keep making it about West Ham when everyone on here has repeatedly said it's not about that.
Oh, and everyone knows the Pope won't be in the latest Trust news. He's a Palace fan.
Comments
The second question is very important. And it has to be around the profit the tax payer will make from West Ham’s contribution. Simple maths show that the £15m West Ham have contributed subtracted from the £272 million of taxpayer’s money fed in to make the stadium suitable for them leaves £257 to be recouped from them. So if after associated costs, £2m is recouped from West Ham each year, it will take 128.5 years for taxpayers to get their money back. If the higher rent estimate of £2.5m is paid it will still take over 100 years. That is not factoring the costs of upkeep of the stadium which over 10 years are likely to be significant, let alone 100 years! How much has it cost to run the Valley over the last 10 years!!!
1 creating an athletics legacy at no cost to the taxpayer
2 as owners of a piece of real estate that needs developing with State aid, acting as would a commercial business in order to get EU clearance.
It's only possible with smoke and mirrors and all efforts are designed to keep them from public view.
Do Athletics UK get to do the same across two of the sides, or are they changing their colours to claret/blue and having a couple of iron hammers as their new logo. After all, they have the stadium for a month...even longer than WHam's 25 days!! Surely they have as much right to choose the colour scheme!!
I suppose they'd also have to change their name to Athletics LONDON too though!!
A little flippant I know, but that seems to be the attitude of Boris, Gullivan, LLDC & Government.
I think the Government response shows they are going to insist that West Ham are paying for limited use so have a financial agreement to reflect this and with their commitment for 99 years it secures the long term viability of the stadium to secure other revenue streams.
Far too many of the points seem to be clutching at straws moaning about the colour of the seats or whatever which in reality matter little because at the end of day West Ham will only have use for a few days a year and it is up to the stadium operators to maximise income from it for the rest of the time.
It seems to me most people actually seem to want the type of deal that was initially first agreed where West Ham took over the full running of the stadium and paid for it so it looks whoever caused that to collapse is the one to thank for what we have now which is on paper West Ham now controlling the stadium use for less days than UK Athletics and as such is almost impossible to call whether West Ham's financial commitment is unreasonable until everything is up and running for a few years and until then I fail to see little argument from the points raised to force a change in this deal.
Yes of course the real point of the matter here is it appears to be the move puts West Ham into what is perceived to be an advantageous position because of this deal but unless they get something more out of it I fail to see how they can be expected to contribute more, as I said the best deal for the rest of ours other than them staying at The Boleyn was probably what was first agreed where they would have been burdened with all the costs though in return they had control of the venue but someone in their wisdom thought that was unfair so saw fit to scupper that, I will confidently predict should something similar happen again the party that will benefit most again will probably be West Ham again.
So the West Ham related income alone will be between 5-10 million a year.
Which means the conversion costs will actually be recovered multiple times over during the 99 year lease.
I would have much prefered a solution with football incorporated from the beginning, keeping the conversion costs to a minimum.
I would have prefered a solution where a club like West Ham (or another Premier League club) would buy the OS and be responsible for all additional costs (meaning of course also getting all the income from other events taking place in the OS).
And ideally I would have prefered a smaller venue being made available for athletics, so the OS could have ended up being a proper football stadium with no need for an athletics legacy.
Several bad decisions by certain people have brought us into this mess.
You are still arguing the case of the LLDC having been bad negotiators. Maybe you should lay the blame at the people who put the LLDC into a terrible bargaining position to begin with.
West Ham were in the right place at the right time, negotiating the best deal for themselves.
I fully expect you to pursue other avenues now and again I wish you good luck with your endeavours.
Are you still pinning your hopes on the Daily Mail and BBC investigative reporters now ?
I have the impression that you do not fully understand what the "previous deal" actually was, and why it failed. Please tell us what you think it as, and who it was who "caused it to collapse". It will be useful for people to have the facts on that.
Other than that you make the same unjustified assertion you did on your last visit on Aug 6, namely that the vast majority of the comments on here reflect a personal crusade against West Ham. That is as untrue now as it was on Aug 6, as I pointed out to you at the time. Poster after poster has acknowledged that West Ham have done what any business would do. Indeed I read a poster on KUMB saying that if in stead Arsenal or Spurs had done such a deal, it would have been Hammers fans who would have started the petition.
But is it not true that West Ham succeeded in one of the earlier bidding processes which would have allowed them to own the OS and also benefit from other events there while obviously bearing the vast majority of the conversion costs, but this was rebuffed with the aid of Hearn and Levy resulting in another bidding process to rent the OS only ?
Also West Ham tried to reach a solution before a brick had been laid to incorporate football use into the design of the stadium, and they were also rebuffed at that stage.
Anyway, you seem to have hit somewhat of a roadblock with the government. The European Commission have already claimed there is no state aid case to answer as they apparently have seen the entire contract.
So, what next for you ? And what could I possibly not enjoy reading in your latest Trust News ?
That you have won the support of the Pope, Kate Winslet or Lewis Hamilton for your petition ?
Plus judging by the season ticket sales we can assume that every single game in our first season there will be a sellout. So if West Ham finish in 12th position this season, 10th or 7th.
The interest of a decent sponsor bringing money to the OS will be huge.
Oh, and everyone knows the Pope won't be in the latest Trust news. He's a Palace fan.